Director Alex Cox ('Repo Man') Says 'Pirate My Stuff'

from the studio-shocked-to-find-zero-sum-game-on-either-end dept

Although we are constantly reminded (or "educated" as they like to put it) that the major studios and labels are only looking out for the interests of the artists, we are equally constantly reminded (by these artists) that this just simply isn't the case. The latest artist to remind us exactly what's wrong with the standing system? Director Alex Cox, best known for Repo Man and Sid & Nancy, both cult classic films and punk touchstones.

We took Repo Man sequels to Universal and proposed they do it, but they weren't interested. What they did instead is they brought out a movie titled Repo Men and pretended that was the sequel.

So, there's strike one. Studio takes a meeting, feigns disinterest, does it on its own terms while simultaneously abusing any goodwill built up between the director and his fans and between the studio and fans of the original. Then there's the wholly incomprehensible "reason" why the UK is getting Repo Man on Blu-ray but the United States isn't:

Universal Studios has an antipathy towards Repo Man and towards Walker. I don't think they will ever bring out a good version in the US. I can't understand why Universal won't do a sequel given how much money they made off the original Repo Man. It's an institutional animus. The kinds of people that get jobs in studios tend to be fearful of their superiors and that's how they keep their jobs. The guys at Universal, even though they were 13 when Repo Man came out, they've been told by their superiors: 'We don't like that film'. And that's the official attitude from generation to generation in the studio. They have an institutional animus which almost makes you think that corporations really could be people.

And... strike two. For reasons only truly known to the studio, Repo Man is not going to see a US release on Blu-ray. Cox has worked with Universal so it's hard to imagine he's just making this up. He's completely right about the institutional fear built into the major studios, which explains everything from the reliance on sequels and remakes to the legislative flailing about in response to piracy. Large entities seldom move quickly and their response time is usually infected with serious amounts of institutional lag. You'd think it would be as simple as throwing on some Region 1 encoding and firing up the burners, but it looks as if Universal Studios would rather American audiences pick this up through alternate methods. If you're worried about "lost sales," it would seem that you'd at least attempt to make your product available for sale.

But Cox isn't through yet. The interviewer mentions "and then there's the crisis of getting the rights from the studios." At that point, Cox tees off:

It's so corrupt. Now they want to have longer copyright periods because they say the young artists are relying on this money. The young artists never see any money because they sign away that money to big media corporations, like Universal and Viacom. We, the artists, lose all of our rights to these massive corporations, who then come down heavy on these kids for downloading films and music that we never see a penny from. It's complete bullshit. I want to encourage your audience to go and pirate a bunch of my stuff right away.

Strike three.

This is what happens when you fight a stranger in the Alps, Universal. Instead of having a happy artist celebrating the worldwide Blu-ray release of a seminal film, you've got a disgruntled former employee telling people to shoplift the hell out of the store. The studios seem to think they're playing a super-smart "long game" by pushing for extended copyright while simultaneously refusing to relinquish any control over the creations of others. As long as the major studios (and labels) continue operating in this antagonistic fashion, they'll find that their "long game" has left them with nothing to play for. Piracy is a message and it's being repeated by the very artists they thought they had under control.

"they brought out a movie titled Repo Men and pretended that was the sequel"

I'm not entirely sure that was how it was marketed, apart from the similar title? Then again, the film was such a naked reworking of the independent film Repo The Genetic Opera that the titular similarity to Repo Man may only have been coincidental. But, remember, we need to maintain this level of corporate creativity no matter the cost!

"I don't think they will ever bring out a good version in the US."

Of course, this would be academic in a free market, since anyone wanting the UK version could buy it no problem. Except - oh yes - they still want to enforce region coding just in case they decide to bring out such a version at some hypothetical point in the future. It is such a genius concept - "If we can't force people to buy in the way that's best for us, we don't want them to buy at all".

"If you're worried about "lost sales," it would seem that you'd at least attempt to make your product available for sale."

Strike one: Repo Men and Repo Man have little if anything to do with each other. One is guys picking up cars and ending up with a weird device, and the other is guys repossessing body organs. I didn't see any pretending that this was a sequel, the movies are truly not related.

Strike two: " I can't understand why Universal won't do a sequel given how much money they made off the original Repo Man." - If the idea is that good, front it yourself, get some seed money, make the movie, and go from there. It seems more like a director trying to relive his salad days and not getting any lettuce.

Strike Three: Without the studios, you would be a no-name with a movie that never got made. Quit your whining, as a "struggling artist" you were more than happy to take their money and (proverbially) snort their stuff way back when. Don't come back 20 years later with sellers remorse.

I would say more than anything, this story is proof that the guy wants it both ways - he wanted the money and the fame then, and now he wants to break the contract he made at the time because it doesn't suit his current situation.

Re:

I can't argue too much about the first point, though I do wonder what made him think it was a sequel. Maybe there are more similarities than the basic concept? I haven't seen the film. Perhaps you can tell us, since you're clearly an expert on it?

"If the idea is that good, front it yourself, get some seed money, make the movie, and go from there."

"Without the studios, you would be a no-name with a movie that never got made."

Ah, here we go. Despite a long career of involvement with the independent film community, a hugely innovative and influential filmography, a long list of film credits and important work in other parts of the film industry, you have to pretend that his brief, inglorious involvement with a studio was all that was important.

Seriously, you're so desperate for your beloved studios to get credit, you have to try and shit on actual artists now. You can't even pretend it's us vs. them any more, you have to attack the artists themselves for criticising how their own work is being handled? Ignore the points raised by the article and Cox's own statements, just attack him because one of his films was produced by a studio and that might have had some tangential effect on some part of his early career (though, you don't say why other than "corporation! They must be right!").

Re:

Ah yes, "TFB for him" sums it up perfectly, doesn't it?

You guys are cheating the artists and stealing from them and we're doing this is a rally cry, except when an artist steps up to complain about the business practices used to cheat them, screw customers, etc. Then it's "TFB".

And the rest of us are the bad guys and criminals? If the irony doesn't kill you, then you're one tough bastard. I'll grant you that.

And then to add to it, they're not releasing the film on blu-ray why exactly? So what I'm gathering is that they DO NOT want me to buy the film legitimately. At all. In which case, if I were the downloading type, I'd be (not quite justified) but okay in downloading it. Why? Because there's a demand being unmet, gratuitously so. I want your product. I have money to pay for your product. Oh, you refuse to sell me your product. Okay, I will keep my money and get it from an unauthorized source for free. It's not a lost sale, because you weren't selling your product or even releasing it at all. If you want to bitch about "piracy" when you aren't even willing to try and sell your product, all I can say to you is, "TFB."

Am I right or what? That's what I'm gathering from this.

Also, I enjoy the blatant ignoring/dismissal of every other point Alex Cox made by you, AC. Pick a few quotes to easily and directly attack, while insulting an artist (who you claim to be doing everything possible for), and ignore the rest of the statements that point out the problems with your business practices. Sums up your side's version of a "debate" perfectly.

Re:

Aah, you were so close. Well, not really "close," but you started off well:

Strike One: I've seen both movies and agree, I never even remotely thought they were connected or marketed that way. Now Repo: The Genetic Opera, on the other hand, was similar enough to raise red flags.

Strike Two: I don't know the legality of this kind of move. That studio made the original, if he were to try to make a sequel without them, would he first need to get permission from them (I can't see that ever happening) or risk having his (proverbial) pants sued off? I'm betting the answer to that is yes.

Strike Three: Well, now you've contradicted Strike Two. First you argued that the studios aren't important, now you argue that they are. Please pick a side and stick to it. And lets see how you would react if you signed a bad contract which hurt you for the next 20+ years of your life. I'm pretty sure you'd be peeved, too.

I would say more than anything, your post is proof that Universal needs to hire better people to shill for them, since you're doing a piss-poor job of defending their side.

Re:

Hahaha, that was good. Simply, if he doesn't own the rights he can't make a sequel, for his protection of course. Without the studios he would have had a different option to make the movie. Just because you remove the dominant business model doesn't mean that nothing could have existed in it's place, time changing hypotheticals are stupid. As for whining, the agreement he made 20 years ago has changed with time, because the studio's altered the definitions of the terms through legislation, not exactly a fair or decent move by the industry.

Institutional Animus?

I'm not so naive as to dismiss it entirely, but in my (albeit limited) experience, that isn't high on the list of likely reasons:

1) Incompetence
2) Ignorance
3) Stupidity
4) Institutional Animus

This doesn't preclude any mash-up among the four, its just that it seems to me that so very often we perceive intelligent, strategic behavior from large organizations when one or more of the top three is really at work.

Re: Dear Sir:

Theft

Instead of having a happy artist celebrating the worldwide Blu-ray release of a seminal film, you've got a disgruntled former employee telling people to shoplift the hell out of the store.

Shoplift? Nice try, troll! As everyone at TechDirt knows, infringement isn't stealing. When you steal something, you deprive the original owner of its use, whereas--what? Oh. I see now that quote was in the original article, not a user comment. Nevermind.

I can't wait to see the look on the face of Universal's execs that happens to be in charge finally understands how being a corrupt asshole will end badly for them, and the company's track record is quite long and very bad. To bad it won't happen to the ones that were the worst.

It is funny how thoughts of "this will last forever" depends on some set of fundamental conditions can not change, which historically has never happened.

Re: Re:

"you have to pretend that his brief, inglorious involvement with a studio was all that was important."

I hate to say it, but without the two films mentioned, I wouldn't know any of his other work off the top of my head.

I don't consider a studio deal to be the pinnacle of anything, except perhaps taking it in the butt. However, let's be fair here: without the studios, he would be a name most people would never have known.

His sequel? Direct to DVD, with a very poor rating on IMDB. So he got the money, made the movie, and apparently it sucked. Perhaps the studios knew something he didn't?

To be fair, the Jude Law "studio" movie was also a bomb, at least commercially, taking in a little more than half of it's 30 million dollar cost.

"Seriously, you're so desperate for your beloved studios to get credit"

They aren't beloved. They are just there. They are big, and they have the power to make someone known or unknown. The rest of your rant is just a rant, and has nothing to do with what I said or my opinion. You really need to lighten up Paul, you get all uppity before anyone has said anything.

Just remember, Cox's comments are ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. Don't you usually rail against the remake mentality anyway?

Re: Re: Re:

Sadly, that's what most of those with dissenting opinions around here do--look for any way to completely dismiss everything the other party has said, regardless of the merit of the individual arguments.

We may be harsh, but attacking the individual arguments with both logic and evidence (both are required) will result in eventual respect.

Re: Re:

"I would say more than anything, your post is proof that Universal needs to hire better people to shill for them, since you're doing a piss-poor job of defending their side."

Another idiot. Here, let me make this easy for you:

" I don't work in the movie industry. I don't work for a studio. I don't get paid by a studio or anyone in the movie industry.

Since you missed that basic concept, I conclude the rest of your post is just as deluded."

Now, as for you points, unless he specifically markets it as a sequel, he would be very much in the clear. The box cover doesn't suggest it is a sequel, perhaps more another look at a similar subject, no different from the Studio's Repo Men. At most, they appear to have Repo in the title as the common thread. Not much there. So Strike 2 is dead.

There is no contradiction here. If you want to make a movie, and the studio system won't fund you, then go make it on your own. If the movie is good enough, it will get picked up one way or another and you will do well. You could do the whole Kevin Smith route and barnstorm it or promote it some other way. There is no contradiction here, more a direct admission (and support of) the idea of the indie film scene. Good ideas that don't meet what a studio wants often still has merit.

Alan Cox made his movie in conjunction with Paper Street Films, one of the most powerful indie houses, and with some actual semi-star performers on the roster, and it still went straight to DVD.

Let's consider Mr Cox as well: his last two movies are remakes or sequels of his previous works. He often writes, produces, and directs his own movies, and often appears in them as an actor. Much of his work appears to be documentary or TV related. His 18 director credits span 30 years, and his works in the last decade have been "sparse", and generally not well rated (the last one scored a dismal 3.3/10 on IMDB).

I think the answers to why the studios wouldn't finance him is in there somewhere.

Re:

"Repo Men and Repo Man have little if anything to do with each other. One is guys picking up cars and ending up with a weird device, and the other is guys repossessing body organs. I didn't see any pretending that this was a sequel, the movies are truly not related."

I'll grant you this, they have little in relation to each other besides having a similar name. But that alone can be enough to fool an unsuspecting audience. Kind of how like you won't let someone infringe on your trademarked logo if thier's is even remotely similar to yours. It's a form of misrepresentation. That's of course ignoring the fact that "Repo Men" is oddly (as in very fucking) similar to "Repo: The Genetic Opera". Of course, if this were in another article entirely, you would probably be (and probably are/have been) one of the ACs saying to create something entirely new and original and stop making derivatives of other works. Because that's not original, nor should even be allowed at all.

"If the idea is that good, front it yourself, get some seed money, make the movie, and go from there. It seems more like a director trying to relive his salad days and not getting any lettuce."

Hmm, well this is kind of difficult to do. Considering a sequel would require getting permission from the studio to do so, if not outright paying a huge licensing fee just to be able to do so. And that's of course assuming that they are willing to give permission, of course, if they did there would be some kind of catch (ala "you can do this, but if it's a hit, we get a huge percentage of the profits, even if you are financing it entirely on your own").

"Without the studios, you would be a no-name with a movie that never got made. Quit your whining, as a "struggling artist" you were more than happy to take their money and (proverbially) snort their stuff way back when. Don't come back 20 years later with sellers remorse."

You know what, PaulT acknowledge this point pretty well, so see his comment for a rebuttal on this point. But to emphasize, the director (a.k.a. ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THE STUDIOS, WHICH YOU MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF BUT WHOM YOU DEFEND TO THE POINT OF ZEALOTRY, CLAIM TO BE FIGHTING PIRACY AND NEEDING TO RESTRICT THE REST OF OUR RIGHTS IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT) is discussing problems he's having with the studio, the fact that the studio is refusing to deliver/release a product, etc. AND YOU ARE ATTACKING HIM FOR IT AND DISMISSING HIS CLAIMS OUTRIGHT.

Re: Re: Re:

I don't work in the movie industry. I don't work for a studio. I don't get paid by a studio or anyone in the movie industry.

People are pretty weird with the "shill" accusations here, for sure - I highly doubt there is a single paid commenter on techdirt, let alone one lurking behind every dissenting AC.

That said, how do you expect people to know who you are and what you do? You are anonymous, and when you take the side of the movie studios, it's not that crazy for people to think you might have some connection to them - even if they do jump to that conclusion a little quickly.

So if you have no direct interest in this, AND you want people to know that you don't work in the industry and engage you on those terms, why don't you set up an account with some sort of handle and a little bit of profile information? It's not at all fair of you to accuse people of having "missed that basic concept" when you give them absolutely know way to identify you or know anything about you. Perhaps they made an incorrect assumption, but they didn't miss anything.

Re:

I think the Repo Man/Men sequel thing has more to do with branding. Because Universal is promoting Repo Men they don't want to have Repo Man II coming out during the same release window (could be five to ten years long). They want to milk the Repo Men thing for all it is worth. Now if Universal are planning a Repo Men II then Cox is truly fighting in the alps.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"That said, how do you expect people to know who you are and what you do? You are anonymous, and when you take the side of the movie studios, it's not that crazy for people to think you might have some connection to them - even if they do jump to that conclusion a little quickly."

The issue is that people are making a basic conclusion, that nobody can agree with or support in any manner the movie studios, the RIAA, the MPAA, copyright, patent, or anything else without being a shill. That is the basic concept, and attaching a screen name to it won't really change anything.

It's easy to dismiss "the system" or "the man" or whatever you call the people with the money and power, but it's hard to hear where they might have done an okay job or just be doing normal things that normal businesses might do.

This case is perfect. Alan Cox has very few movies made in the last decade, the ones he has made have been received with a shrug, and worse, the last two are sequels or remakes of his previous works. From a purely business standpoint, I cannot see a reason why a studio would want to plunk money in front of this guy to work with. The chance that they get something really good and commercially viable seems remote, based on his body of work.

You could miss the basic concept of this thread if you don't realize that Alan Cox (Repo Man) hasn't had a big enough hit in 30 years for anyone to identify him by anything else but that. His whine against the studios is all nice and fine, but honestly, the studios appear to be right on this one.

Re: Re: Re:

Now they want to have longer copyright periods because they say the young artists are relying on this money. The young artists never see any money because they sign away that money to big media corporations, like Universal and Viacom.

This shows how corrupt the whole thing is. Why ratchet the length of copyright some more? It certainly isn't to help artists.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I highly doubt there is a single paid commenter on techdirt, let alone one lurking behind every dissenting AC.

Yeah, I agree. I seriously doubt there are any "paid" shills here either.

I know that there is a one or two here who troll for the lolz only and have even stated as much. There is one wannabe lawyer who can't see past the trees (letter of the law) in order to see the forest (overall impact to society). And there is one who appears to be an angry failed music promoter who wants to blame all his misfortune in life on piracy. Top all that off with a few loonies like bob, out_of_the_blue and darryl and you got one hell of a mix, but I doubt any are paid to comment here.

Relevant

Although I find some of his ideas controversial, if not bigoted, I do find this particular quote from Richard Wagner to be most applicable to the current situation regarding copyright/IP.

"'Property' has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property — for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained — can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors."
--Know Tyself: A Continuation of Religion and Art, 1881

Astroturfing at imdb?

I find it interesting that the "user" reviews at IMDB for "Repo Men" is 6.3/10 versus "Repo Man"'s 6.8/10, but the Metacritic scores are way different: "Repo Men" bombs at 32/100 and "Repo Man" is given 75/100.

Did Hollywood actually pay thousands of people to push its new movie up in the ratings? Or is this just the natural overvaluation of new releases which is also a known phenomenon on imdb.com?

"THE POSITIVE EFFECT ON LEGITIMATE MARKETPLACE WHEN ILLEGAL ALTERNATIVES ARE SHUT DOWN: MEGAUPLOAD & THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

· Since the shut down of notorious file-sharing site Megaupload, Internet users have been turning to legal offers for entertainment.
· In France, the demise of Megaupload resulted in an unexpected and significant boost in internet traffic – in terms of numbers of visits, unique visitors and page views – for legitimate TV offerings.
· Two weeks after the site was closed down, several television stations reported increased traffic on their legal on-demand video and Replay TV sites.
· The increase was immediate and especially notable for channel W9 on TNT, which offers free access to American series. On their Replay TV site, traffic quadrupled.
· Pay TV and Video-On-Demand also enjoyed increased traffic, with one “catch-up” site reporting a 40% traffic increase.
· Tv-replay.fr, a platform which merges all catch-up services in France saw a 17% increase of unique visitors on their site over two weeks, a 28% increase in series viewing as a whole in one week, and a general rush for American series. Traffic for the TV series Castle, for instance increased by 62%, while traffic for NCIS Los Angeles grew by 70%.
· The shutdown of Megaupload has helped a fast-developing sector become even more successful. Sales increases have been consistent for over a year. In 2011, 14.5 million people used Replay TV, a 3.4 million increase over 2010.
· The demise of Megaupload has also led to increased DVD rentals. A manager at one rental store in France calls his increased business “the Megaupload effect.” He says that his store is now packed on Saturdays to the point where they’ve had to expand their hours on weekends. Online rental sites, too, are seeing more action. One internet rental company (The HollyStar company) has noticed an increase of approximately 5% since the shutdown of Megaupload."/

This is why piracy exists

Loved this movie, live in the USA, unable to buy this anywhere. It was put up on the net 2 days ago, mkv, 1080p bluray rip, looks fantastic. Universal just lost another sale and customer. How are those windowed releases and region restrictions working out for you? I dont "just" want stuff for free, but if free is the only way I can obtain it...

Re: Re:

I see. So after the litany of claims that there was no evidence that the Megaupload shutdown didn't increase legitimate sales; evidence refuting that is met with "it's likely that those effects are short-term, rather than long-term."

Re: Re: Re:

And here's some more good news, posted by Arstechnica but somehow escaped Masnick's scrutiny:

"To reduce piracy, RapidShare throttles download speed for free users
by Jon Brodkin | Published 3 days ago (Cross posted from Gear & Gadgets)
With the government shutdown of Megaupload and voluntary disabling of file sharing at sites like FileSonic and FileServe, the remaining file lockers are naturally getting hit with tons of traffic. One such site—RapidShare—has decided to handle the influx by slowing download speeds for non-paying users, in an effort to drive pirates away.
After users started noticing reduced download speeds, RapidShare today explained its new policy in a statement to TorrentFreak. “RapidShare has been faced with a severe increase in free user traffic and unfortunately also in the amount of abuse of our service ever since, suggesting that quite a few copyright infringers have chosen RapidShare as their new hoster of choice for their illegal activities,” RapidShare said, according to the TorrentFreak article. "We have thus decided to take a painful yet effective step: to reduce the download speed for free users. We are confident that this will make RapidShare very unpopular amongst pirates and thus drive the abusive traffic away." Different tiers of download speeds for free and fee-based services are typical, but RapidShare is apparently going beyond that with slower-than-usual speeds for free users.
This could have a negative effect on users who pay for premium service, however, when free users attempt to download the legitimate files shared by users of "RapidPro." To prevent this negative consequence, a new system lets people verify the content they upload by providing additional information such as "what type of files they’re sharing, the name of the sites and blogs where the download links are getting posted, and the uploader’s e-mail address and telephone number," TorrentFreak explains. If files are proved to be legitimate, then even free users can download them at the fastest speed.
Last month, RapidShare told Ars that it is "not concerned" by the government crackdown on Megaupload because file hosting itself is a legitimate business, as long as one follows all applicable laws. But RapidShare's most recent move shows that the post-Megaupload world is a much different one for users of file sharing services and the companies that provide them.

UPDATE: TorrentFreak is now reporting that RapidShare is entirely unavailable for non-paying users, with download links leading to a "404 not found" error." We were able to reproduce the error message."

Re:

Interesting. Definitely some stuff worth looking at there - moreso on the VOD side (the DVD stuff is pretty flimsy - one store owner and one customer isn't much of a data sample)

This point kind of bugs me though:

The shutdown of Megaupload has helped a fast-developing sector become even more successful. Sales increases have been consistent for over a year. In 2011, 14.5 million people used Replay TV, a 3.4 million increase over 2010

Since Megaupload came down in 2012, it would suggest that a lot of the growth is unrelated, wouldn't it? If usage went up by some 20% YOY prior to the Mega shutdown, it seems like the growth is more attributable to the fact that those legitimate services have been improving. (I'm also not sure it's fair to call them "sales", since most of the content on Replay TV appears to be free)

That's not to say that the week-over-week bumps aren't related, but it does lend weight to the argument that the shutdown only had short-term effects, since the long-term ones are part of a trend that started much earlier.

Re: Re: Astroturfing at imdb?

I find IMDB ratings to be so uneven that I take them with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, their rankings for the movies I liked fairly well matches my own, but sometimes they'd have others I really didn't like ranked higher.

Re: Re: Re:

Okay but... where's the evidence of that acceleration? You have massive YOY increases for the year prior to the shutdown, then an isolated (so far) bump immediately following it. The data seems to support what we've been saying for awhile: that building better legitimate services is a far more effective way of drawing in users than trying to curtail piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

read everything above that line. I agree the last line is somewhat speculative.

Oh, and here's a link to an article about the Swedish cops closing down sites and others voluntarily dropping out. Why Mike, can you only present one side of the story in your zealous prosecution of intellectual property rights?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

read everything above that line.

It's just that the only thing the other data seems to say is: one popular source of free TV got shut down, and all the others got a boost in traffic. Again, that suggests that this has little to do with piracy or people refusing to pay - it seems more like Megavideo was offering the best free service, and now that it's gone people are going to other free services...

Moreover, since most of the traffic to pirated TV on file lockers comes from the big link indexing sites that people use to find the shows - most of which also link to legitimate sources - it's not clear that user behaviour has changed at all. People are just having to try more links from their indexing sites before they find a good one, and thus more people are ending up on the legitimate sites.

What all this says to me is that, ultimately, it's all about who is offering the best service and the most accessible shows. Legitimate services were already making huge long-term gains by focusing on improving their own product, but now they are getting some short-term gains because a competitor got shut down. It's enforcement in place of innovation. It's artificial monopolies distorting the free market. Since the next brood of moles began popping up within mere hours of Megaupload being whac'd, I don't see there being much of a long-term benefit from this. In fact, I see a long term detriment to both the content providers and the customers, since it reduces the motivation to innovate and improve their services - a strategy that was apparently working very well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Only strange if you don't really understand or read the things posted on this site.

What's more strange is how over and over and over and over you ignore statements explaining things like: infringement is not condoned, new business models are encouraged, and evidence after evidence after evidence that piracy is a factor of unmet need and that fighting it doesn't convert people into purchasers.

But it is much easier to ignore all that isn't it? Kind of like how its easy to say 2+2=5 if you never listen to anyone else's response and deny that math books even exist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Option 2: Submit the story!

Oh please! Any and every obscure story, rumor or article supporting the Techdirt anti-copyright, pro-infringemnet agenda finds it way into the headlines almost in real time. Anything disruptive of the Techdirt echo chamber is somehow overlooked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

seems like no matter what evidence you are confronted with, you revert to your faith-based views. From where I sit, the Megaupload bust has both driven scores of similarly situated infringers to either abandon ship or take long overdue steps to fight infringement on their sites. Concurrently we see spikes in legitimate distribution and enablers like PayPal suddenly having a change of heart and cutting off pirates. There are those who deny the Holocaust and climate change too I suppose. Consumer demand can be shaped by enforcement. Its not the whole solution, but it is silly to deny that it plays a role.

Re: Re:

"Hmm, well this is kind of difficult to do. Considering a sequel would require getting permission from the studio to do so, if not outright paying a huge licensing fee just to be able to do so."

The thing is, because the "sequel" isn't really that, and all he was trying to do was play on his past work a bit, there was no reason to do it. He could have made the movie without studio permission (and apparently did) because there is nothing in it.

As for PaulT's point, let's put it this way: The studio is under no obligation whatsoever to finance and distribute this guy's sequel work. They bought out (and paid for) all of the rights to his work 30 years ago, and as such, whatever choices they make to protect that product are to protect their own positions as they only people with an actual interest in it. Mr Cox worked on the movie, but appears to have sold all of this rights out a long time ago. So the "protecting the artist" in this case is really protecting the studio, because they are standing in the artist's position - they paid for that right. I dismiss PaulT's claim because it has no bearing - in this case, the "artist" being protected is the studio that bought out the original "artist" to start with.

PaulT has a real issue with movie studios because he has chosen a lifestyle that has him living in a non-english country, and he constantly bitches and moans that the studios are unwilling to eat a bunch of money and produce what would be a very limited product to service him in his marketplace. I have a hard time taking him seriously, because he doesn't seem to grasp fundamental business issues, both from a straight financial requirement, as well as from a regulatory point of view dealing with his new home country.

His lack of understanding in these issues, along with his dogged determination to pin his poor living arrangement choice on the studios is laughable - but makes it very hard to get a good discussion going.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Taken further, there is an incredible ripple effect through the entire piracy community, especially when it comes to "forum" style piracy.

Basically, you have tons of forums out there that had nothing but posts that linked to certain file locker sites, such as Mega. Part of the ripple effect here is now all of these posts are meaningless, and either someone has to manually go aback and update them with new links, or they get trashed out.

It hurts the credibility of these sites as well, when users find nothing but page after page of dead links, they go elsewhere. After a few tries at NOT getting what they want, perhaps they give up for the night, or even (gasp) decide to rent the movie from the local redbox or perhaps add it to a netflix list rather than just pirating it.

The Mega case has also proven to many file locker site owners (and some torrent site operators as well) that the reach of the US doesn't stop at the border on these issues, and that more and more countries are becoming un-safe havens, rather than places they could hideout.

Finally, the mega deal has also killed an entire underground economy. There was a very solid conspiracy to pay people to upload popular (aka pirated) material, pay for activity and downloads of those files. There was a lot of pressure by these file sites for users to pay for long term download passes, by doing things like breaking major movies into 4 or 5 parts, and then limiting unregistered users to a single part per day. They were paying the original uploader a percentage of all memberships. That money was financing the piracy side, and financing many of the piracy related boards and sites that were out there.

It's hurt a bunch of things, but you won't see that discussed here. There is plenty of denial, and not a whole lot of looking at reality. It's pretty sad actually when the entirely one sided Torrent Freak is more honest than Techdirt.

Re: Re: Re:

"I hate to say it, but without the two films mentioned, I wouldn't know any of his other work off the top of my head."

So? Quality is not determined by mainstream appeal. I could name at least 5 of his movies off the top of my head, and he's directed 18. Yes, the 2 films most people are familiar with were distributed by a major studio (although I believe that Sid & Nancy was an independently financed project). So what? Does your personal familiarity with those 2 films mean that Straight To Hell and Highway Patrolman are bad films? Is quality only determined by whether the average moron who doesn't watch independent cinema has heard of it? That's not a good metric to measure these things.

"His sequel? Direct to DVD, with a very poor rating on IMDB"

Again, so? Its release method is irrelevant, and even the original is a very divisive film only getting a 6.8 rating. If the movie has its fans and made back its money, who the hell cares about the other aspects? Well, at least you now admit its existence instead of attacking Cox for not having financed it.

"They are big, and they have the power to make someone known or unknown."

Which is a big part of the problem being criticised. They're big to the point of being able to exclude independent competition from mainstream venues, yet make so many horrible mistakes that they leave true artists out in the cold. Then they attack the rest of us, under the guise of "protecting artists". This is a problem.

"The rest of your rant is just a rant, and has nothing to do with what I said or my opinion."

No, you attacked Alex Cox for being a fame whore who's bitter about not being rich and famous and too lazy to finance his own movies. If you took 5 minutes to actually research the guys' career, you'll see he's anything but. He's a true artist who has fallen foul of a number of the mechanisms in the film industry most of which are as damaging to audiences as they are to him. But, yeah we have to protect this business model?

My "rant" was largely made up of facts. Sorry if you can't deal with those.

"Just remember, Cox's comments are ONE SIDE OF THE STORY."

They're all we have to go on for the moment, and the history of Cox's career gives me no reason not to believe him. If anyone on the "other side" wants to respond instead of attacking him, they're welcome to and I'll judge those arguments on their merits. Otherwise, what we have is yet another example of an artist who had to deal with studios back in the days before Kickstarter, digital, etc. made films easier and cheaper to produce independently, and he's still having problems 30 years later. This is not a glowing endorsement of the status quo you defend so vehemently.

"Don't you usually rail against the remake mentality anyway?"

The mentality, yes - meaning that original ideas are thrown out in favour of franchises and pointless, soulless remakes and sequels made purely as cash grabs. I have no problem with remakes launched for artistic reasons, and my favourite movie of all time is in fact a remake (John Carpenter's The Thing). Again, I apologise if this is too subtle for you.

Re: Re: Re:

"I am not "you guys". I don't work in the movie industry. I don't work for a studio. I don't get paid by a studio or anyone in the movie industry."

Then, why are you so single-mindedly obsessed with defending their actions and attacking people who take a different route? You never come up with constructive criticisms, only attacks and distortions. If you're not paid to do this, then why?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Alan Cox has very few movies made in the last decade"

Try searching IMDB for his actual name, then maybe read up a little bit of biographical information to learn the history behind his career. These half-assed assumptions aren't getting you anywhere, especially since you can't even be bothered to get his name right.

"the ones he has made have been received with a shrug"

Cox is an artist who had always pushed boundaries, and has recently had some problems with distribution. Neither of these bode particularly well on a mainstream skewed platform like IMDB. On an artistic level, this is irrelevant. Again, do these movies lose money, or are they just not big enough mainstream successes for your personal tastes? The latter is irrelevant.

"and worse, the last two are sequels or remakes of his previous works"

In fairness, I assume you're going to criticise Hollywood studios and directors for the same thing?

"The chance that they get something really good and commercially viable seems remote, based on his body of work."

Read his history. The studio said exactly the same thing about his early work, including Repo Man.

Re: Re: Re:

Listen, dumbass, if you're going to launch personal attacks against me, at least understand the last several years' of posts. You're missing every single point I ever made, and making up some positions I've never held.

"in this case, the "artist" being protected is the studio that bought out the original "artist" to start with."

Jesus, you really see no problem with this do you?

"PaulT has a real issue with movie studios because he has chosen a lifestyle that has him living in a non-english country"

Bullshit. Virtually every problem I have I also had when I lived in the UK. Apart from the availability of services like Netflix, NOTHING changed when I moved to Spain. Region coding, high prices, subpar product, and all the crap I usually criticise is equally applicable to the UK.

"and he constantly bitches and moans that the studios are unwilling to eat a bunch of money and produce what would be a very limited product to service him in his marketplace."

Again, bullshit. Removing region coding would cost them nothing, except the ability to try and rape non-US markets with subpar product and high prices. If Amazon ship to me here instead of someone in the US, it costs the studio nothing. They don't have to do anything except remove their artificial restrictions.

"I have a hard time taking him seriously, because"

Because you constantly misrepresent, misunderstand and outright lie about my actual positions. Such as the above.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Consumer demand can be shaped by enforcement. Its not the whole solution, but it is silly to deny that it plays a role.

I don't deny that it plays a role - I just don't think it's a very big or lasting role. And yes, consumer demand can be limited by enforcement - and that's a bad thing in my books. I'd much rather see consumer demand be met by innovation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Taken further, there is an incredible ripple effect through the entire piracy community, especially when it comes to "forum" style piracy.

Basically, you have tons of forums out there that had nothing but posts that linked to certain file locker sites, such as Mega. Part of the ripple effect here is now all of these posts are meaningless, and either someone has to manually go aback and update them with new links, or they get trashed out.

It hurts the credibility of these sites as well, when users find nothing but page after page of dead links, they go elsewhere. After a few tries at NOT getting what they want, perhaps they give up for the night, or even (gasp) decide to rent the movie from the local redbox or perhaps add it to a netflix list rather than just pirating it.

Yeah, for like a month. Then the ripple effect in the other direction - where pirates find a new method, a new haven, and word of it rapidly spreads to all those casual users - kicks in. Shutting Mega down gives legitimate services a quick bump - but innovation is what gets them long-term gains, and if they don't focus on that, and instead worry about stopping all the pirates, they are not going to solve their problems.

Finally, the mega deal has also killed an entire underground economy. There was a very solid conspiracy to pay people to upload popular (aka pirated) material, pay for activity and downloads of those files. There was a lot of pressure by these file sites for users to pay for long term download passes, by doing things like breaking major movies into 4 or 5 parts, and then limiting unregistered users to a single part per day. They were paying the original uploader a percentage of all memberships. That money was financing the piracy side, and financing many of the piracy related boards and sites that were out there.

And again, this will almost certainly continue in some form or another - but a bit shadier, with payments being processed a bit deeper under ground, and tracks being covered more thoroughly. What a victory.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't deny that it plays a role - I just don't think it's a very big or lasting role. And yes, consumer demand can be limited by enforcement - and that's a bad thing in my books. I'd much rather see consumer demand be met by innovation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Marcus, I do try to be reasonable but you are a zealot. It's like talking to fucking Scientologist, some gun nut or a Tea Party head case . Seldom right, but never in doubt. I'm not saying not to argue your point, but when you argue with the thinnest of rationale, it is easy to be dismissed by reasonable people.

Re:

I'm so glad Megaupload got shut down. I run a mail-order company and business has increased this year already. January and February were both strong months for vhs & dvd sales. People need to learn that they are not entitled to anything. If you want to see a movie, PAY for it.

Re: Re:

Bahaha!! Thats the most load of bull I've ever heard about pro censorship. Filesharing sites and the internet in general is about the distribution of information, that includes text, audio, video and art... if you think that shutting sites down is a good idea and think it's going to promote digital products than you really don't know anything about consumers or people in general.
You can't shut a website down when only a portion of its content is pirated, there are legitimate files stored there.

And there is no proof that actual pirated content is harmful. All it does is serve as free advertising, people distribute and it gains popularity. Thats the point of the internet.

The increase in VHS, DVD in your companies sales is a normal occurence, because you know, sales increase and decrease all the time. Fluctuating nature of any market.

The so called 'lost sales' is a guess, theres no way to calculate lost sales if there is no missing product.

A tiny amount of people pirate (or borrow from a friend), possibly ~1% and even that's probably been generous. And alot that do will end up buying it if they like it, so they can see it in high quality or if they want to help the developer.

Movie and music industries have only been getting higher overall profits over the years. The so called 'piracy' hasn't made a dent in their annual sales figures.

All that companies can prove by trying to get governments to censor the internet is that scare tactics and oppression might put people in line for a time... but nobody is going take away our freedom for long.